samuel.bowles.es

You said,

"In the service sector where every hour costs someone something fast and cheap are in fact the same thing."

I'm not yet convinced on this. Can you expand on it?

It's like a taxi ride without an odometer. If you paid per hour you were in a taxi the faster he drives the cheaper the ride and the opposite is true as well. Unless someone has a brilliant way to add an "odometer" to our billing structures fast = cheap.

To stretch the analogy a little if the taxi driver says the trip from the airport to the center of town will always cost X then it's in his best interest to get you there as quickly as possible: he's losing potential money each minute you're in his cab. In this case time = money for the driver.

Does that help?

My first impression is that this is overanalyzing a seemingly insignificant point. I say insiginificant because there's also another unwritten rule that the phrase you're using (fast, cheap, good) is just a rule of thumb and not a rule of business. By treating it so seriously, you are giving it more credit than it's worth.

However, I like your taxi analogy. It paints a clearer picture of what you're trying to convey. And, I do think you have a point to some degree. There is definitely a lack of odometer in our industry. We are measured by time (for the most part). So, like you said, if we burn the midnight oil 3 days during a project just to get it done faster for whatever reason, we are not being compensated for the extra effort we're putting in. Conversly, the client doesn't get a discount just because we got it done more efficiently than if we had done it on a normal pace.

So, I guess my question is, what are you proposing? Any solutions, or just an idea?

Good thoughts but you need to re-think the idea of "Fast". If a client decides to choose "Good" and "Cheap" - they are also saying that the project doesn't need to be done right away; possibly it can wait for a week/month when your other projects have died down.

If a client needs a project done "Fast" - that means other projects within the company must move aside or more man power is needed which will result in a higher cost.

I should also note that I completely agree with your saying "larger question: what is the purpose of the site?". You should never begin a meeting with "Good, Fast, or Cheap".

Also - this "Good, Fast, or Cheap" fact is not meant to be used alone. You also have to manage the project scope and explain to the client the expectations of the project. "Good and Cheap" means many different things to many different people. "Good" doesn't necessarily mean all the bells and whistles. Nor does "Cheap" mean it's going to be under $1000.00 - it could be very well be a $500,000.00 site and still be good and cheap but only worked on here and there when time for the project allows. However, you're level of Fast is also changed based upon the actual price of the project.

Paul - You're probably right about overanalyzing but I should probably clarify the reason this phrase made me stop and think most recently. Having been neck deep in client work as of late I spent quite a bit of time thinking about the role of compromise in my work.

In the past few weeks I've been working on three jobs one was short and sweet and I got paid exactly what I was worth (IMHO), the second was big and long and I donated (purposely) most of my time, the third was medium length and I took a hit on it because I needed some money (any money) and I also knew I wasn't completely qualified for the job (I had some things to learn).

If I were to classify these jobs I would say that the first client wanted good & fast, the second good & cheap, and the third fast & cheap. Two out of these three are possible but good & cheap is not. The only reason I was able to finish this job was because I was willing to donate time which in most business contexts is not an option.

I'm not sure I have a "solution" I think I'm just trying to reach a deeper understanding of how I make decisions related to prioritizing and pricing my work.

Aaron - Actually some people use "Good, Fast, Cheap, Scope. Pick Three." I'm honestly not sure how they make that work - maybe someone can fill me in?

You are actually onto a small flaw in my argument though. It's not, however, that I need to rethink what I mean by fast but rather by cheap. The flaw in my argument is that I assume that the hourly rate is a fixed thing. If you can figure out a way adjust your rate per hour based on the rate of speed a client wants you to achieve we're back to a functioning rule of thumb.

This is hogwash. "Fast," in the sense it is used in "Good, Fast, Cheap" does not mean you will do a 12-hour job in 6 hours (that would likely be fast and cheap -- and crap). It means that you will push everything else aside to do the 12-hour job within a single day. If you're not charging a premium for a fast turnaround, you're getting ripped off.

And one more thing: a lot of people seem to think that this is a suggestion for how to start off a client meeting. It's not. It's an old engineer's joke. To be sure, it is informative, and you can certainly keep it in the back of your mind when talking to a client, but if these were the first words out of your mouth, they'd probably also be the last.

That said, when I get a client who says they want something spectacular and they want it tomorrow, I don't hesitate to tell them there will be a significant price tag attached. You shouldn't either.

Fletcher - I'm not assuming that anyone would begin a meeting with this line. If you reread what I wrote I say, "Fast, cheap, good is not the best question to begin your design process with." - I'm talking about concepts we use to inform our design process and in turn our business processes not how to run a sales meeting. I am aware of the origin of this phrase and I also know that business processes are often informed by catchy or trendy phrases. Check the business aisle of your local bookstore.

"The bottom line is quality takes time (which is in fact money)."
The problem is that when you talk about "time" - it is different for both the designer and the client. The client is thinking in days - you're probably thinking in hours (and sleepless nights!)

I think I agree with what Fletcher was saying in the first paragraph of his comment.
The client can say, "I want it in two days." But how many HOURS will it take to complete it? Will it be two, eight-hour days (which the client probably assumes), or will it be two sixteen-hour days in which you work your ass off for which the client has no appreciation?

So which costs more? Of course it depends on how you bill it, but I don't think you CAN say that fast=cheap when you look at it this way (if "fast" = 2 days instead of 32 hours). If you double the amount of work hours you put in to a project, either the client pays for those hours (possibly even at an elevated "rush" rate), or you pay with your time.

Here's the thing, I doubt that either Ivan or myself, or anyone else really, uses this as a costing tool. Perhaps I wasn't clear, you see, rather than asking a cient to pick any two, I use it as a method of demonstrating that they can't have all three. We refuse to bill, or pay, by the hour, I see no reason to incentivise someone to work slowly, and we specialize in tight deadline jobs, but I refuse to sell shit, so I use this when a client asks why we're not as cheap as a competitor.

Again, it's a quick sketch followed by an, "Oh! I see" by the client, it's not a science...!

BTW. Nothing like a bit of good old controversy to get that "comments" button working overtime eh?

Respect...!

What Fletcher said.

Fast relates to scheduling, not hours billed. I was taught this rule of three as it related to printing - if you want it delivered tomorrow don't expect the ink or coating to be dry and all your pieces to be beautiful.

Clients should be talked out of 'fast and cheap'. Rushing something out on a deadline without paying for an extra proofreader is the sort of cheap solution which effects the other two variables, but could ruin a designer.

Nice comments, but damn'd if they aren't missing your point, eh? It's not really about Fast/Cheap/Good. It's simply an angle to get to the payoff. I think your last paragraph is your main thesis:

"Setting concrete goals at the beginning of a project for what the site should accomplish and measuring them throughout it's development will serve both the bottom line of your client and yourself more than promising them the world at the beginning: Fast & Cheap & Good."

Maybe you should start with it? Client's need their expectations set --especially newbie or idiot clients. And so part of our job is to set those expectations. ROI/ROA is a good one, because it forces the discussions to center around the business problem that the design is solving (which is good for both the client and the designer). And it forces the client to pick what they want to measure, which is a Good Thing (usually). The problem with ROI-driven projects is that many clients are SOL out of the gate. They don't know what to measure, let alone know how to measure it, let alone have the cash to measure it.

And that's just the money side of ROI. Throw in intangibles like branding/tribe building, and suddenly the client needs a masters in marketing to really get their moneys worth.

But now I'm just spewing. I like your main point, and kudos for tackling the subject.

Charge rates vary - e.g. a higher charge for 'design' time versus a lower charge for 'production' time. The triangle is good for framing trade-offs to the client: When the client asks for 'better', you can clearly talk about additional 'design' time to show more options. When the client ask for 'faster' you can clearly talk about fewer options (design) or less polish (production). When the client ask for cheap, you can ask for a 12-month lead. The conversations go much better.

I generally will trade 'cheap' in exchange for 'options' (I have more say over the final design chosen) with pro-bono work being almost completely at my artistic discretion.

Shmuel, you make a lot of sense by clearly stating some of the ideas I've been tip-toeing around for a long time concerning my design work. Strangely enough, some of the same thoughts and considerations go into how I price my art work, which feeds an entirely different "need" in the client.

Even though there are less guarantees, I'm glad that art is what I'll be selling for most of my life, rather than design (not because I think one is better than the other, but because that's who I am). What you said about purpose is right on, and I'd just rather the be the one being asked "what is your purpose?" (instead of asking a client who doesn't quite know the answer to that question), while also setting the parameters.